The Revolt Against Globalism

There was William Galston at the
European Council on Foreign Relations, listening to his fellow elitists and
foreign policy honchos caviling about the rise of Donald Trump and bemoaning
the fate of the European Union (EU) at the hand’s of Britain’s
Euro-skeptics. As the assembled luminaries had a collective sad in their
five-star hotel, wondering how the proles could’ve gotten so far out of hand,
Galtson – longtime Democratic party hack, former domestic advisor to Bill Clinton,
and a senior fellow at the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard
a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil
Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the
Council
on Foreign Relations, had spoken to him from on high – or, rather, from
below – and commanded him to spread the Word far and wide:

“I realized that the stakes in the U.S. presidential election are even higher
than I had thought. The fate of the entire postwar order hangs in the balance,
and with it the prospects for democracy world-wide. Without vigorous American
leadership, the prospects are not bright.”

Oh, yes, those shortsighted Little People are “turning inward,” and “this is
understandable,” but, hey, “liberal internationalism is back on its heels” and
the dreaded “ethno-nationalist populism” – i.e. resistance to the One World
“global governance” schemes of Galston and his comrades – “is on the march.”
What’s a globalist to do?

And it’s not just the English-speaking world that’s resisting the globalist
agenda. Those Frenchies are getting restive, too, and the rest of Europe is
balking at “the obvious candidate for continental leadership” for “historical
reasons.” After all, everyone remembers the last time the Germans tried to impose
“union” on the Europeans, so there’s that. See how prejudiced the Little People
can be? They just don’t have the foresight to worry about the New
Hitler – Vladimir Putin, if you even have to ask – who “senses a historic
opportunity to exploit Europe’s divisions for his own purposes.” Why, he actually
wants to trade with Europe, and that would undermine the war plans of the CFR
types, who are fixated on restarting the cold war. Of course, they don’t actually
say that in so many words, but the intent is clear enough. They put it like
this:

“If Europe doesn’t hold together when facing a rearmed and resurgent Russia,
the gains for democracy and free markets since the fall of the Berlin Wall and
the collapse of the Soviet Union may well be rolled back.”

You know, “democracy” – like in Ukraine, where EU–inspired
mobs overthrew the elected President and the coup leaders immediately launched
a vicious war against their own people in east Ukraine, killing many thousands
and unleashing neo-Nazi regiments like the Azov
Battalion on those who dared to resist. That’s
“democracy” for you! And alarm bells should go off whenever you hear a top
advisor to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Walter Mondale hail “free markets.” It’s
a signal for the looting to begin.

As usual, everything depends on the United States – as inheritor of Rhodes’
beloved British empire – but, alas, the “ethno-nationalist” contagion has spread
across the Atlantic, and it may be that the Yanks are not coming:

“Now is the worst possible time for the US to pull back and, as Donald Trump
would have it, to reframe America’s relations with Europe as a transaction to
be terminated if the sums don’t come up right. Franklin Roosevelt understood
that a democratic Europe was a vital national interest of the US So did Ronald
Reagan and every other postwar president. US diplomacy in 2017 and beyond must
reflect this core reality.”

In the transaction preferred by Galston and his ilk, America always comes out
the
loser. That’s because we have a Mission, and it doesn’t matter how much
it costs: we must bear the weight of Empire on our shoulders without complaint
and without regard for the welfare of our own citizens. After all, anything
less would be selfish: no, we mustn’t succumb to the requirements of common
sense and fiscal sanity. It’s our sacred duty to police the world, so people
like Galston can sit around in the Hague and determine the fate of entire peoples.

Forget Asia: we can’t “pivot” eastward while the Poles are pining for American
aid and arms and the Romanians are unhappy with their lot. If we pay too much
attention to where more than a third of the world’s population resides, as opposed
to focusing on Estonia (population under two million) we’ll miss out on a real
opportunity to start World War III with Russia. And let’s stop with the “complaints
about insufficient European military and diplomatic burden-sharing” since these
“have proved ineffectual in the past.” Just like that good-for-nothing uncle
who keeps coming to you for “loans” that are never repaid, you just have to
buck up and keep handing out the cash – because your own ineffectuality is your
best friend.

As for those trade agreements which are mislabeled
“free trade” but are really just protectionist
trade blocs meant to “integrate” us into supranational entities – it’s really
a shame the two presidential candidates have bowed to pressure from the Little
People and come out against them. But it’s not too late to shore up the failing
EU by signing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Galston and the globalists are frightened to death: their plans for a world-spanning
Empire on which the sun never sets seem to be sinking beneath the same waves
that have overwhelmed all the empires of the past. But they aren’t giving up
their grand plans just yet: far from it. As Galston puts it:

“None of this can succeed unless the American people are persuaded that
outward-facing military, diplomatic and economic arrangements are consistent
with their own well-being. Increased defense spending, which enhances job-creation
as well as national security, may well be needed. New measures to cushion vulnerable
Americans against the wage and employment shocks created by trade are essential.”

All this “America first” nonsense has to be dispensed with, and fast: Americans
must be weaned away from their selfish parochial concerns and made to see that
we’re all citizens of the Global Village. And if all this “outward-facing” policy
means pouring our wealth into renovating some ramshackle Ukrainian hamlet until
it meets the standards of a typical American slum, well then let’s create jobs
on the home front by arming to the teeth – after all, we’ll be needing a lot
more bombs if we’re going to be fighting the Russians. Just keep those government
printing presses rolling!

And here’s the punch line you’ve been waiting for, where the Galstonian agenda
is revealed for all to see:

“Given current circumstances, robust internationalism is inconsistent with
the fiscal austerity imposed by budget sequestration, let alone Paul
Ryan-style proposals for retrenchment in the social programs that working Americans
rely on for what is left of their security. Whatever its proponents may say,
a smaller government at home means retreat abroad. This is the road to disaster,
and we must not take it.”

Galston has understood what the National Review
crowd and the Ted Cruz conservatives refuse to acknowledge. As that Old Right prophet and polemicist
Garet Garrett put it:

“Between government in the republican meaning, that
is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and
Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the
other or one will destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice
been put to a vote of the people.”

More than fifty years after those word were written, the people are rising
up against the globalist agenda – against Galston and his fellow World Planners
– and demanding that the issue be put to a vote of the people. The Republican
party, long a fortress of internationalism, has been breached and taken by self-avowed
America First nationalists, and our British cousins have thrown off the shackles
of a supranational super-State -in-the-making, reasserting their sovereignty
and inspiring rebels on the continent to follow their example.

The revolt against globalism is going global – and that’s a good thing for
libertarians and for all opponents of Empire. Whatever the contradictions and
ideological idiosyncrasies of the various anti-globalist forces now on the move,
their victory is a precondition for the recovery of liberty in America. Because
Galston is perfectly correct to say that “a smaller government at home means
retreat abroad.” He understands what the leadership of the post-World War II
conservative movement has spent decades evading – and, more importantly, now
the rank-and-file are beginning to understand how they’ve been lied to all these
years, and why the promises of their leaders have all come to naught.

This is a great step forward for libertarians: the consciousness of the masses
is being raised to new heights. Our task now is to engage them, educate them,
and recruit them as soldiers in the fight to take our country back from Señor
Galston and the regnant elites he represents.

SCHEDULING NOTE: Yes, I’m baaaack!
After a “vacation” that consisted of editing the late great Murray Rothbard’s
unpublished book on libertarian strategy, I’m returning to my regular schedule
of three columns per week. So stay tuned to this page, because there’s a lot
more to come.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets
are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist
of me thinking out loud.

Author: Justin Raimondo

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].
View all posts by Justin Raimondo